"Head on or manoeuvre?" Topic

Head on or manoeuvre?

link

Gettin' there Fastest with the Mostest has a morale effect too, manoeuvre is effective, but perceived to be risky as the maneuvering element can run into trouble.
Good battlefield intelligence and confidence in the junior leader can make maneuver tactics possible and effective, especially (as the original article states) if a portion of the attacking force remains to pin the defenders in place.

Well, head on, obviously, because this is TMP and as miniature wargamers we are obliged to pack too many troops on the table to permit maneuver. Also maneuver tends to call for hidden movement, which means no one gets to show off their toy soldiers. Even worse for the WWII gamer, maneuver calls into question the value of the Tiger II, which is heresy.

Real life? Talk to me about communications, intelligence, training, discipline, mobility, firepower and armor. If there were only one right answer and it never changed with conditions, I'd like to think we'd have arrived at it by now.

I have a lot of sympathy with the reader who told Basil Liddell-Hart and a man as clever and well-read as BLH could just as easily have written a book titled Strategy: the Direct Approach.

The article seems to have forgotten what happened during the first gulf war where the allies outflanked the Iraqi army. Also, the failure of Russian forces in Ukraine to use proper combined arms tactics has caused them serious losses. Unless a campaign map is used allowing forces to move off table and outflank enemy forces it will be a head on attrition battle on the game table.

Often there are too many miniatures on the game table to allow any sort of maneuver. This is particularly true of WW2 and modern armor games. During the battle of Medina Ridge both the Iraqis and US forces were operating on fronts of 5km per battalion.

I did see an on table outflanking move happen on in a game that was part of an ACW campaign that I ran years ago. The Confederate commander had taken up entrenched positions on a hill. The first Union division arrived on table in front of them and proceeded to march to the Confederate right. The Confederates responded by shifting to the right to face the threat. Then a second Union division arrived at the same point as the first one had. The Confederates shifted back to their entrenchments and somehow managed to forget about the flanking Union division as they became heavily engaged with the division to their front.

Robert +1

robert piepenbrink

Well, head on, obviously, because this is TMP and as miniature wargamers we are obliged to pack too many troops on the table to permit maneuver. Also maneuver tends to call for hidden movement, which means no one gets to show off their toy soldiers. Even worse for the WWII gamer, maneuver calls into question the value of the Tiger II, which is heresy.

This is only for tedious old fashioned rules dreadful rules ;-). Dummy markers at least for hidden defenders is de rigueur for a serious simulator and don't get me stated on the stupidity of the Tiger myth. The Brits sorted it out. First shot from a Tiger kills. Sherman response, there is always lots as they are cheap ,it's just shoot HE and AP at it using the Sherman's gun capable of high rates of fire. Tiger either retreats to be picked off later or the crew bail. If you are brits just take it out with a Firefly. Standard practice read Brothers in arms James Holland. ISBN 978-1-7867-3394-0

I suppose that it really depends upon the terrain, and roads available.

Going head-to-head is generally not a good idea if there are open flanks of the enemy's forces to be exploited.

Open desert is a very unique situation though, rivaled perhaps only by open plains (but probably less so, due to the likelyhood of streams and rivers cutting those and channelizing at least some maneuvers, unlike in the desert).

In mountainous, or heavily wooded regions, road networks are most likely the norm, though even then attackers will seek to find open and vulnerable flanks, or other roads where they can bypass defenses.

In my opinion, this is where you really need to use maps or hexmaps to set up games on the tabletop, since in most miniatures games, there isn't a large enough table to permit proper maneuver during a game to get those flank attacks you desire.

The only exception to this might be when using 1/600th scale minis and reduced-scale distances. At 1:1 scale in 1/600th scale, a 6' wide table is still only 1,200 yds. wide.

Everyone knows the Tiger II is virtually the best "tank" (actually the best "tank" from a technical standpoint, since the others I propose are tank destroyers) on defense in WWII, perhaps only surpassed by the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, regardless of maneuver warfare, if they've got adequate long-range, fields of fire (hyperbole intended, so keep your sanity when trying to dispute/refute my claim).

Yes, I know they can be bypassed with maneuver warfare, which does make the case rather moot, eh, for the above, AND all other vehicles too.

Any soldier/officer worth his rank/paycheck knows a Frontal attack should be your last choice. With Flanking and/or Penetration being better options. Mobile Combined Arms maneuver warfare. Whether in the RW or on the gaming board.

The interesting bit here is the figures in the article, where if the flank became too large it did less well. I wonder if this is because the defenders treated it as an attack with two axis, as it were, not a main with flank, and so defended the flank better.

A large flank attack would need much longer to develop and organise, giving defenders more time to prepare.

Legion 4--well, yes, in moderns, which I regard as a dull period, but it's also a matter of degree and scale. Was it "head on" to insist on invading France in 1944, where "maneuver" meant Italy, or perhaps Greece? Some said so at the time. You don't want to feed units into a meat grinder, but it's a good trick to advance without taking fire--and may suggest you're headed in the wrong direction.

At some point, you have to say "yes, you're taking fire--but not much fire, and if you stall or keep maneuvering it's going to get a lot worse." Officers get paid the big bucks to make that call because it's not an easy automatic decision.

A large flank attack would need much longer to develop and organise, giving defenders more time to prepare.

Every situation may be different. Many times dictated by the terrain, weather, etc. However, in general flanking attacks in the long run are a better option, IMO. E.g. the Germans sending Panzer Divs thru the Ardennes in '40. Out flanking the French & UK forces, etc.

Or even more recently during Desert Storm in '91 … I.e. Schwartzkopf's "Hail Mary play" …

Was it "head on" to insist on invading France in 1944, where "maneuver" meant Italy, or perhaps Greece?

You are talking strategic not operational or tactical. The Allies did try to go thru Italy but in the long run it just kept many German forces tied down there. And not defending the West Wall or Eastern Front. From a strategic standpoint … the Russians were coming from the East, the Western Allies coming South from Italy. Then again with the invasion of Southern France. Which was after the Normandy landings from the West. So the Allies were coming from 3-4 directions.

You don't want to feed units into a meat grinder, but it's a good trick to advance without taking fire--and may suggest you're headed in the wrong direction.

That is what commanders get paid for. Know were & when to attack or defend. E.g. Mac in the PTO, he generally attacked where the enemy was weak or not there. Also Inchon was a good example of that, too …

Even great leaders, e.g. Patton & Monty, both had their own plan for capturing Sicily. Who was right ?

Officers get paid the big bucks to make that call because it's not an easy automatic decision.

Even as a Rifle Plt Ldr then Mech Co. Cdr I got paid to make the "right" tactical decisions. Even if just in training.

As someone said … "if it was easy … they'd get monkeys to do it !" … 🙈🙉🙊🦍🦧

A lot of JFC Fuller's writings are devoted to the issue of making a penetration of the enemy's front, and exploiting it effectively. Fuller is one of the few modern theorists to take the issue head-on (so to speak). His influence on the German generals was far greater than Liddell-Hart's, and there is little of the "indirect approach" to the great armored battles on either the Eastern or the Western fronts in WWII. Most of the great battles of encirclement started with a frontal penetration, rather than a wide hook around an open flank.

Fuller had little influence in his own country after he retired, in part because of his Fascist politics. Liddell-Hart had a great deal, and the advice he gave the British government was followed- and probably didn't help much. Neither was influential during the war, but Liddell-Hart found it advantageous after the war to have the German generals claim he was a brilliant thinker who influenced them, while for their part they needed any help they could get- so they were happy to play up to him. Fuller wasn't exactly looking to emphasize his influence on the Germans at that point, and understandably so: it raised questions that might have been uncomfortable for him. Regardless, and in spite of his personal difficulty and his bizarre personal life, Fuller was in many respects the more prophetic and enduring thinker. Those "principles of war" familiar to every PME sufferer start largely with him.

Yes, Liddle-Hart was "before his time" so to speak.

Most of the great battles of encirclement started with a frontal penetration, rather than a wide hook around an open flank.

Yes, that is the classic Penetration attack. As noted the Germans later based their Blitzkrieg on generally.

The US Army IIRC has[had ?] 3 forms of attacks:

Frontal – attacking on a broad front with massed forces.

Flanking – going around the enemy's flank and attack into his rear areas. Also may require troops to be in position to attack the enemy's front line positions. In a Feint/Diversionary or even in a Penetration attack.

Penetration – as we saw with the Blitzkrieg/Liddle-Hart doctrine. Attacking a weak area/position in the enemy's line with an overwhelming Combined Arms force. To penetrate their line, break thru, exploit and push into the enemy's rear, etc.

Of course, all three forms of attacks will be mobile combined arms forces. So the types of offensive ops are based on terrain, situation, weather, etc., and most importantly the leader(s) in charge. As I said, e.g. Monty's plan for taking Sicily vs. Patton's.

It seems IMO[and others] many leaders generally prefer the Flanking or Penetration attack. For obvious reasons … But again who is in charge dictates many things …

robert piepenbrink, used to play English civil war, flanking was an option but I like me RW counterpart failed. Generally you need the enemy to be deployed badley regarless of period for flanking to work. So generally with a half decent oponent and peer type competent troops, flanking is not going to be a great achievement. Now if you call breakthrough exploitation as flsnking then that worked but that by then fslls into my point above its now non peer opponents.

Personally gave up 'Old Stuff' for more interesting Modern(ish) stuff.

The recently published "Battlegroup!" by Jim Storr has much to say about manouvre warfare in the high intensity environment of the Cold War central front. Essentially about how the US, BAOR and BW planned to fight and how different their approaches were.

The somewhat obvious conclusion being that manouvre warfare is vastly more effective, but requires excellent training and doctrine to pull off. And yes, if the battlefield is packed with troops, you need to force a penetration first. That is what artillery and airpower are for.

The somewhat obvious conclusion being that manouvre warfare is vastly more effective, but requires excellent training and doctrine to pull off.

Agreed, e.g. the Russians in Ukraine today.

And yes, if the battlefield is packed with troops, you need to force a penetration first. That is what artillery and airpower are for.

Yes, the combined arm doctrine calls for Infantry, Tanks, CEs, etc. supported by FA & CAS … Find a weaker part of the enemy line. Attack with overwhelming force & firepower. IIRC the German Blitzkrieg called this the "Scwherepunkt"(?).

Rapidly rupture that part of the line, break thru, exploit the hole and head for the enemy's rear areas, etc. Push massive amounts of combined arms units, etc. into that breach. Nothing new there. But again, the troops have to be well trained to make this happen.

However, from a tactical level Flanking, also called Envelopment. Is probably the best option in many cases to secure an OBJ, etc. And again, using combined arms with FA and/or CAS support.

We all know the advantage of flanking a trench line, etc.

Infantry and their heavy weapons using fire & maneuver with Mortars/FA support is still combined arms, regardless. In many cases as an Infantry leader, we didn't get armor support, for a variety of reasons. But we generally had Mortars and or FA.

I think the distinction here is that if you win, you have made a penetration, and were tactically astute: if you lose, you were attacking head-on, and should have maneuvered. Helpful for historians and AARs, but not terribly useful for the poor decision-maker.

Well said. So the real key is good reconnaissance, so you know where the weak spots are -- if any.

+1 Robert …

And yes, good recon from all and any sources makes the Plt Ldr, Co & Bn Cdrs', etc. job a bit easier generally. E.g. the US Infantry & Tank Bns have a Scout Plt under the Bn Cdr's control. Many NCOs and Officers are Ranger qualified as well, especially in Infantry units. Understanding how to do proper dismounted patrolling[been there – done that] or even mounted in APCs, Jeeps/HMMWVs, etc. are important skills to master.

Plus recon by aircraft, or in more modern times orbital assets. Along with SIGINT & HUMINT, etc. can give the Cdr a good matrix/concept of what the enemy's situation is, etc. But Intel and Cdr must evaluate it correctly. E.g. the Americans in the first year of the Korean War, the Winter of '50. The large numbers of Chinese being killed or captured near the Yalu and further South. Were not just a handful of "volunteers". Regardless of the reports coming back from units at the front. Saying otherwise …

Defence in depth stops flankers becuse they never get a breakthrough. You might even say it itself ia a flanking defence, you penetrate but expose your flank more and more as you progress ino the enemy. Monty re-enfoced the "shoulders" in the battle of the bulge opening a sort of flanking defence.

Monty re-enfoced the "shoulders" in the battle of the bulge opening a sort of flanking defence.

Sometimes called holding the shoulders. E.g. like the Germans at Falaise Gap, '44 but that was a fighting withdrawal. Generally the concept is similar.

However, when penetrating a weak area of the enemy's line it is a given you may have follow on forces to hold the "gap" open. Plus have follow on forces push into the gap and continue to exploitation as along with the initial line breaking/breaching force.

Once you penetrate and push into the enemy's rear areas, etc. you actually have de facto flanked those enemy forces on the front lines. They have to try to withdraw if they can. Die or surrender to the follow on forces etc.

A good example of defense in depth is Kursk '43. The Germans penetrated and flanked a number of the Russian lines. Sometimes called Defensive Belts. But along with that the Germans took losses flanking and penetrating those lines. Along with the huge tank battle losses on both sides …link